Most of my life was lived BEFORE "Obamacare" was even a thought in anyone's mind....

[Barbella]

and, imagine that, I had access to birth control. Always. I just had to either pay for it, or pay a small co- payment.... but I never had a problem getting whatever I wanted.

Now, suddenly, the GOP and the SCOTUS and all of these horrible people are DENYING women all access to birth control? Gasp! They should be SHOT!

What a [Unwelcome language removed] lie. NO ONE is DENYING birth control to ANYONE. You liberals are so full of shit...

 

[PhilFish]

nanny or ninny-ism to the Nth degree..

those screeching about it are saying 'give it to me, it is my right!! it you wont give it to me then I can't have it!! mysoginist!!! screech!!

false.

you can have it. if you want it. no one is preventing you from getting it.

at issue is that a closely held private entity does not have to pay for it if it goes against their beliefs.

 

[Barbella]

nanny or ninny-ism to the Nth degree..

those screeching about it are saying 'give it to me, it is my right!! it you wont give it to me then I can't have it!! mysoginist!!! screech!!

false.

you can have it. if you want it. no one is preventing you from getting it.

at issue is that a closely held private entity does not have to pay for it if it goes against their beliefs.

Yep. This whole thing began in order to give women the "right to choose". NOW, thanks to Hobby Lobby and the SCOTUS ruling, family-owned corporations have that same right.... the right to choose.

As it should be.

 

[Jen]

and, imagine that, I had access to birth control. Always. I just had to either pay for it, or pay a small co- payment.... but I never had a problem getting whatever I wanted.

Now, suddenly, the GOP and the SCOTUS and all of these horrible people are DENYING women all access to birth control? Gasp! They should be SHOT!

What a [Unwelcome language removed] lie. NO ONE is DENYING birth control to ANYONE. You liberals are so full of shit...

Yep.
Obama has convinced women (through his version of Stepford women like Sandra Fluke) that if he doesn't pay for their birth control they don't have it.

and

It's their right to have birth control and "rights" should be FREE

What a crock.

 

[Arkady]

nanny or ninny-ism to the Nth degree..

those screeching about it are saying 'give it to me, it is my right!! it you wont give it to me then I can't have it!! mysoginist!!! screech!!

false.

you can have it. if you want it. no one is preventing you from getting it.

at issue is that a closely held private entity does not have to pay for it if it goes against their beliefs.

It is their right to have contraception covered by the insurance big employers are required to buy. It is a right created by a duly-enacted law -- passed by the majority in the House, and the majority in the Senate, and signed by the president. It's just that after all those hundreds of elected representatives created that right, five unelected men with a religious problem with birth control took some of that right away, for some women, in order to give government imprimatur to certain state-favored religious beliefs.

 

[PhilFish]

It is their right to have contraception covered by the insurance big employers are required to buy. It is a right created by a duly-enacted law -- passed by the majority in the House, and the majority in the Senate, and signed by the president. It's just that after all those hundreds of elected representatives created that right, five unelected men with a religious problem with birth control took some of that right away, for some women, in order to give government imprimatur to certain state-favored religious beliefs.

there is no such right.

 

[Arkady]

there is no such right.

There was, by law, until those five justices infringed on it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It is a right created by a duly-enacted law -- passed by the majority in the House, and the majority in the Senate, and signed by the president.

Negative, the contraception mandate was added on after the bill was passed... unconstitutionally.

 

[Arkady]

Negative, the contraception mandate was added on after the bill was passed... unconstitutionally.

If it was unconstitutional, then why didn't the Supreme Court strike it down equally for all businesses, rather than creating special rights only for businesses whose owners embraced certain politically favored religious views?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If it was unconstitutional, then why didn't the Supreme Court strike it down equally for all businesses, rather than creating special rights only for businesses whose owners embraced certain politically favored religious views?

Oh so now what the Supreme Court says goes.

Why can't you be so respectful of their decision with Hobby Lobby?

Let me ask you a question..

Do you like the idea of Presidents adding on extra major changes AFTER the bill gets passed? Shouldn't it be voted on again after the changes?

 

[marvin martian]

The Free Shit Army is on the march

 

[UPNYA2]

It is their right to have contraception covered by the insurance big employers are required to buy. It is a right created by a duly-enacted law -- passed by the majority in the House, and the majority in the Senate, and signed by the president. It's just that after all those hundreds of elected representatives created that right, five unelected men with a religious problem with birth control took some of that right away, for some women, in order to give government imprimatur to certain state-favored religious beliefs.

"It is their right to have contraception covered by the insurance big employers are required to buy."

And they DID.

Hobby Lobby covered 16 different versions of birth control/contrception. They were objecting to being forced to provide 4.

So you see, this new, bizzare "right" to birth control/contraception of every employee WAS covered by the insurance big employers are required to buy, was it NOT?

What YOU are crying for is to have EVERY version paid for by others.

Look, I happen to NOT believe that having sex is a necessity in lify, though it is obviously something damned desirable, but lets just say that it IS as you dems/libs maintain, a "requirement" to live......... Lets just say........

Because sex is a "necessity" of life, like food and shelter, we as a society are required to provide it to those who can not provide it for themselves. Like we do food and housing.

Except that in the case of our right to food and shelter, NOONE is claiming that those receiving from others are entitled to EVERY form of food or housing that THEY desire.

So look at those day after pills as if they were Al Gores mansions....... Just because some wineo asleep on a bus stop bench has the right to be housed, if we offer him 16 different options and he demands 4 more, if he wants Al's place, is THAT his "right"?

 

[UPNYA2]

There was, by law, until those five justices infringed on it.

As you have already been told, there was NOT......... until ONE chick "infringed on it".

The law was passed. Then it was changed. by ONE. Then it was changed again. By five.

Why is it you want to complain about one way a law is altered yet ignore another, skippy?

 

[Arkady]

Oh so now what the Supreme Court says goes.

Why can't you be so respectful of their decision with Hobby Lobby?

Let me ask you a question..

Do you like the idea of Presidents adding on extra major changes AFTER the bill gets passed? Shouldn't it be voted on again after the changes?

No, I'm not saying what the Court says goes. But, I see absolutely no argument to support the idea that it's unconstitutional, and you offered nothing but a naked assertion. So, I'm trying to understand your point.

As for the idea of executive action to flesh out a legislative statute, yes, I like the idea of that, since it's the only practical way to handle issues like this. And it's quite common. Statutes regularly spell out the law in broad strokes and leave it to regulatory agencies to come up with the fine details, within those bounds.

 

[Arkady]

As you have already been told, there was NOT......... until ONE chick "infringed on it".

The law was passed. Then it was changed. by ONE. Then it was changed again. By five.

Why is it you want to complain about one way a law is altered yet ignore another, skippy?

The law was passed, expressly providing that the details of which coverages would be mandated would be worked out after passage. If Congress had wanted to exclude this particular coverage, they could have. They didn't. They left it in the hands of the executive. Then the Supreme Court seized that power, in order to promote state-favored religious views.

 

[PhilFish]

There was, by law, until those five justices infringed on it.

a law was crafted that afforded such a provision.


there is no right to contraception.

 

[UPNYA2]

The law was passed, expressly providing that the details of which coverages would be mandated would be worked out after passage. If Congress had wanted to exclude this particular coverage, they could have. They didn't. They left it in the hands of the executive. Then the Supreme Court seized that power, in order to promote state-favored religious views.

Well, unfortunately for you, just as YOU pointed out earlier, our legal system was designed like it is because it is "the only practical way to handle issues like this."
Again, as YOU stated, "it's quite common."
"Statutes regularly spell out the law in broad strokes and leave it to regulatory agencies", and, yes, the COURTS, "to come up with the fine details, within those bounds."

See, our defining of laws doesn't begin with the President and end with "regulatory agencies".

This can NOT be news to you. Why, it is almost as if you are of the opinion the decisions of the courts don't count, are not "real", unless they are of the same opinion as you............

 

[Barbella]

Why, it is almost as if you are of the opinion the decisions of the courts don't count, are not "real", unless they are of the same opinion as you............

"Almost"? ROTFLMAO...

 

[Arkady]

"It is their right to have contraception covered by the insurance big employers are required to buy."

And they DID.

Hobby Lobby covered 16 different versions of birth control/contrception. They were objecting to being forced to provide 4.

So you see, this new, bizzare "right" to birth control/contraception of every employee WAS covered by the insurance big employers are required to buy, was it NOT?

What YOU are crying for is to have EVERY version paid for by others.

Look, I happen to NOT believe that having sex is a necessity in lify, though it is obviously something damned desirable, but lets just say that it IS as you dems/libs maintain, a "requirement" to live......... Lets just say........

Because sex is a "necessity" of life, like food and shelter, we as a society are required to provide it to those who can not provide it for themselves. Like we do food and housing.

Except that in the case of our right to food and shelter, NOONE is claiming that those receiving from others are entitled to EVERY form of food or housing that THEY desire.

So look at those day after pills as if they were Al Gores mansions....... Just because some wineo asleep on a bus stop bench has the right to be housed, if we offer him 16 different options and he demands 4 more, if he wants Al's place, is THAT his "right"?

If you preferred to have fewer versions of contraception covered, representative democracy gives you tools to do that. Hint: it involves winning elections. That's something right-wingers suck at these days -- even their majority in the House is despite getting fewer votes than the Democrats. So, they instead rely on right-wing judges to legislate from the bench.

 

[Arkady]

a law was crafted that afforded such a provision.


there is no right to contraception.

Yes, there is a right to contraception, by law. It's just that five justices decided to take that right away from some people in deference to politically favored religious beliefs of politically valuable business owners.